The class war has begun

Frank Rich writes: During the death throes of Herbert Hoover’s presidency in June 1932, desperate bands of men traveled to Washington and set up camp within view of the Capitol. The first contingent journeyed all the way from Portland, Oregon, but others soon converged from all over—alone, in groups, with families—until their main Hooverville on the Anacostia River’s fetid mudflats swelled to a population as high as 20,000. The men, World War I veterans who could not find jobs, became known as the Bonus Army—for the modest government bonus they were owed for their service. Under a law passed in 1924, they had been awarded roughly $1,000 each, to be collected in 1945 or at death, whichever came first. But they didn’t want to wait any longer for their pre–New Deal entitlement—especially given that Congress had bailed out big business with the creation of a Reconstruction Finance Corporation earlier in its session. Father Charles Coughlin, the populist “Radio Priest” who became a phenomenon for railing against “greedy bankers and financiers,” framed Washington’s double standard this way: “If the government can pay $2 billion to the bankers and the railroads, why cannot it pay the $2 billion to the soldiers?”

The echoes of our own Great Recession do not end there. Both parties were alarmed by this motley assemblage and its political rallies; the Secret Service infiltrated its ranks to root out radicals. But a good Communist was hard to find. The men were mostly middle-class, patriotic Americans. They kept their improvised hovels clean and maintained small gardens. Even so, good behavior by the Bonus Army did not prevent the U.S. Army’s hotheaded chief of staff, General Douglas MacArthur, from summoning an overwhelming force to evict it from Pennsylvania Avenue late that July. After assaulting the veterans and thousands of onlookers with tear gas, ­MacArthur’s troops crossed the bridge and burned down the encampment. The general had acted against Hoover’s wishes, but the president expressed satisfaction afterward that the government had dispatched “a mob”—albeit at the cost of killing two of the demonstrators. The public had another take. When graphic newsreels of the riotous mêlée fanned out to the nation’s movie theaters, audiences booed MacArthur and his troops, not the men down on their luck. Even the mining heiress Evalyn Walsh McLean, the owner of the Hope diamond and wife of the proprietor of the Washington Post, professed solidarity with the “mob” that had occupied the nation’s capital.

The Great Depression was then nearly three years old, with FDR still in the wings and some of the worst deprivation and unrest yet to come. Three years after our own crash, we do not have the benefit of historical omniscience to know where 2011 is on the time line of America’s deepest bout of economic distress since that era. (The White House, you may recall, rolled out “recovery summer” sixteen months ago.) We don’t know if our current president will end up being viewed more like Hoover or FDR. We don’t know whether Occupy Wall Street and its proliferating satellites will spiral into larger and more violent confrontations, disperse in cold weather, prove a footnote to our narrative, or be the seeds of something big.

What’s as intriguing as Occupy Wall Street itself is that once again our Establishment, left, right, and center, did not see the wave coming or understand what it meant as it broke. Maybe it’s just human nature and the power of denial, or maybe it’s a stubborn strain of all-­American optimism, but at each aftershock since the fall of Lehman Brothers, those at the top have preferred not to see what they didn’t want to see. And so for the first three weeks, the protests were alternately ignored, patronized, dismissed, and insulted by politicians and the mainstream news media as a neo-Woodstock for wannabe collegiate rebels without a cause—and not just in Fox-land. CNN’s new prime-time hopeful, Erin Burnett, ridiculed the protesters as bongo-playing know-nothings; a dispatch in The New Republic called them “an unfocused rabble of ragtag discontents.” Those who did express sympathy for Occupy Wall Street tended to pat it on the head before going on to fault it for being leaderless, disorganized, and inchoate in its agenda.

Despite such dismissals, the movement, abetted by made-for-YouTube confrontations with police, started to connect with the mass public much as the Bonus Army did with a newsreel audience. The week after a Wall Street Journal editorial claimed that “no one seems to care very much” about the “collection of ne’er-do-wells” congregating in Zuccotti Park, the paper released its own poll, in collaboration with NBC News, finding that 37 percent of Americans supported the protesters, 25 percent had no opinion, and just 18 percent opposed them. The approval numbers for Occupy Wall Street published in Time and Reuters were even higher—hitting 54 percent in Time. Apparently some of those dopey kids, staggering under student loans and bereft of job prospects, have lots of parents and friends of all ages who understand exactly what they’re talking about.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 thoughts on “The class war has begun

  1. Christopher Hoare

    Many self-styled pundits have called on the protestors to get out and vote—as if voting for any representative of the failed and futile political establishment would correct the last 50 years of graft, incompetence and corruption. To take back the societies and the nations of the West from the power structures that have usurped them the progressive forces must SET the agendas, not vote on them.

  2. dickerson3870

    RE: “The class war has begun”
    • Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.
    • A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal.
    • Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.
    • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
    SOURCE –
    “We are our own devil, and we make this world our hell.”
    Company Of Thieves: Oscar Wilde (VIDEO, 04:50) –
    Oscar Wilde, Los Vidrios Quebrados (VIDEO, 02:05) –

  3. hquain

    Yeats famously set passionate intensity against lack of conviction, but he omitted wishful thinking. Rich shows us how it works, when he describes Charles Coughlin as “the populist ‘Radio Priest’ who became a phenomenon for railing against ‘greedy bankers and financiers’” and then goes on to quote him approvingly. Coughlin was a fascist-friendly madman who published the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in his magazine; after a short while, he became an implacable enemy of the New Deal. If this is populism, let me off at the next stop.

  4. scottindallas

    The Protocols, whether they be forgeries or not, were published at the birth of mass media. Therein one can find a program to sway public opinion. The methods are effective and practiced by many today. We should not commit the genetic fallacy, and instead look at the propaganda campaigns orchestrated by various groups–I’m thinking mostly of banks/industry lobbyists. We can fairly say whether a propaganda campaign is evocative of the Protocols or not. This has nothing to do with Jews, or forgeries. The Protocols contain a propaganda program, it’s either being followed or not. It’s (prescient) origins are of no merit.

Comments are closed.